It’s true that Labour cannot form the next government without winning back most of the “Red Wall” seats it lost.

But the leadership has come to some odd decisions over its Brexit strategy as a result.

Let’s look at the polling. From @OpiniumResearch last week, we can see that of 3 options:

a trade deal with close alignment to the EU
a trade deal with a clear break from the EU
No Deal

Only the close alignment option is acceptable to more people than unacceptable. 2/12
If we just look at the people who find each option unacceptable, out of All Voters, Labour voters *and* 2019 Labour Leave voters, all groups find a deal with a clear break more unacceptable than a deal with close alignment. 3/12
So it hardly feels like electoral suicide for Labour to explicitly argue for a deal with close alignment. This is particularly true since Labour’s current poll lead with @YouGov comes mainly from the one third of 2019 Lib Dem voters who now say they would back Labour. 4/12
75% of 2019 Lib Dem Remainers think a “clear break” deal is unacceptable, so there is considerable risk in alienating these voters by Labour backing a Tory deal with the EU which will inevitably mean a very hard Brexit. 5/12
https://t.co/q6ma2zZWyF
At the height of the Brexit crisis, the debate had become highly polarised, and a soft Brexit option was unpopular with both Remainers and Leavers (who mostly wanted No Deal). Labour was right to back a second ref, not soft Brexit, under these circumstances. 6/12
But back in September 2017 a citizens assembly of 50 randomly selected members of the public heard presentations from experts and politicians on both sides and came to the conclusion that a soft Brexit would be the best option. 7/12
https://t.co/st3BEd2rG4
At the heart of Brexit there is a trade off - greater sovereignty inevitably means taking a hit to the economy and jobs. In a less polarised atmosphere with a genuine discussion around this trade off, the citizens assembly provides evidence that people prioritise the economy.8/12
Now that much of the sound and fury around Brexit has dissipated, there *is* an opportunity to have a serious debate, and an opportunity for Labour to be leading that debate by arguing against the government’s hard Brexit. 9/12
As @anandmenon1 points out in this excellent article, criticising a government deal which will do more medium-term damage to the economy than Covid, falls neatly into Starmer’s narrative around government incompetence. 10/12
https://t.co/bKgJ5jhIth
Voting for the deal makes future attacks on it more difficult, and also picks a weirdly unnecessary fight with the pro-EU Labour membership at a time when there is already a necessary (IMO) fight going on around Corbyn and anti-Semitism. 11/12
Abstaining on a government deal would be a good start, but more importantly Labour needs to be arguing for an alternative deal with closer alignment to the EU. With polls already suggesting this is the most popular Brexit outcome, this shouldn’t need too much courage. 12/12

More from Government

1.
Act of 1871
This is VERY Long but it will end with a MEGA BOOM!
Bookmark it and read it in small bits to digest it all.

This info, comes from some reputable anons and my own digging, compiled together as a superthread!
InevitableET, IPOT... to name a few.

2.
https://t.co/udep5WEYUp
https://t.co/bnzeQek6zv


3.
The TL; DR version is they, by military force, and illegitimate legislature, amended the constitution against the will of The People and legally tricked us into becoming unwitting indentured slaves of human capital and resources to THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA the corporation)

4.
Republic vs Democracy
-They needed to get away from the Republic and create a Democracy in order to drive us towards socialism and inevitably a dictatorship (National Socialist Party aka NAZI)


5.
Flag

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.